Edit: oops, it is the R-1000, not the 2C+. I think they are stopping with the development of SPARC processors, unless they will in the future create another SPARC CPU (all based on v9) with far more power. But seems they are more interested in VLIW design rather than SPARC. SPARC is even worst at x86 emulation and quite outdated by other RISC designs.
Information below about Elbrus 2C+:
The processor itself is not bad, but it really is just a dual core Elbrus e2k processor at 500mhz with 4 Elvees DSP cores. Purpose was to power multimedia based systems like Radar and information translation for the military. That is the purpose of the DSP cores as they are significantly better than a standard processor at translating raw media data.
The processor though is running off of older technology that makes it quite a bit behind the Elbrus 4C and soon 8C. Also, its x86 instruction is very basic from what I heard thus it has major performance loss when it is emulating the x86 functions in Windows OS. While Elbrus 4C has much less performance loss (something like 25% for Elbrus 4C compared to something like 40% to that of Elbrus 2C+). These toughbooks were not meant to run Windows (the Monoblock and the All in One from Kraftway were tests more like it) and thus they run their own OS, which is a KNE OS called Elbrus OS: http://elbrus2k.wikidot.com/elbrus-operating-system
Here is the OS that some major companies in Russia developing their own KNE os: http://marchmontnews.com/Technology-Innovation/Volga/20881-Russias-own-operating-system-expected-%E2%80%98oust-Windows.html
Windows library takes advantage of instruction sets that are defined on CISC processors, hence they are what one would consider to be efficient for the OS compared to RISC processors that instructions are done on a software level, thus the OS needs to take advantage of the RISC processor for specific tasks (you can have out of order on a RISC that simulates similar to CISC processors), and that makes the translation between CPU and software much more efficient. But, if it is not coded around it, as well it needs to be emulated, there is a major performance hit. Hence Elbrus 2C+ in Windows (Khathi over at MP.net stated he saw it running a newer variant of Windows at a MAKS once and it was very speedy processor, capable of running windows very well). But the thing is, whatever you will see these Elbrus processors running on, wont be on Windows. It will either be its own KNE or BSD based OS. There was this OS too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_OS which sounds promising and it is BSD based (like OSX and iOS is). but once again, it has to be developed around the processor/hardware in order to be efficient/take advantage of the architecture.
Wherever you look, these specialized processors are running off of their own respective OS, in order to take advantage of the hardware. For instance, Oracle has Solaris (also last known as SUN before it was bought out by Oracle) and it is a BSD based OS that takes advantage of its SPARC processors (Since Sun created the SPARC architecture). IBM zOS/2, Fujitsu with its BS2000/OSD, Loongsong with its own Linux OS, etc. This in turn allows a theoretically slower processor, seem to run faster than its counterpart, as the OS is specially designed around the architecture of the CPU/Hardware thus, making it very responsive to the instruction set available as well as the arch design. Problem with this, it becomes less open, thus lack of third party development and huge consumption for. Windows on the other hand uses specific instruction sets and library, which CISC processors these days (only two, Intel and AMD) take advantage of in their instruction sets, thus technically, Windows is a very open OS to build hardware around (well, open in that sense, I think you need to purchase licenses to develop for it on the hardware level as well). But it isn't designed to a specific processor, and if one takes a look at Windows library management, it is piss poor (same with their update structure). But nonetheless, Intel and AMD build their CPU around these specific instruction sets and come out with driver support or what not for these processors in Windows OS library so the OS can take advantage of the CPU's new instruction (if you notice, both Intel and AMD have all very similar instruction sets with some odd few here and there differences, that is due to copyright laws). But if you look at AMD, Intel and Nvidia, especially in the graphical side of things, on Linux, they are piss poor. Because that is lack of development on that sector for these processors/GPU's and lack of a proper library/driver support.
If MCST wanted to make a processor to compete with Intel, much like Loongsong, Fujitsu, etc, they would have developed a CISC processor with similar instruction sets (or exact ones like SSE, which requires a license from Intel), then maybe they could. But instead, they went the other route, which is cheaper and more effective for them - developing RISC based processors (or VLIW which is RISC, but a Very Long Instruction Word) and a specific OS to it. Because these two groups meet specific needs. Specialized field of processing for specialized development (things like HPC, Workstations that deal with advanced computational work like graphical design, Autocad, etc). These type of fields are also good money makers. But if MCST wants to get their processor out on the open civil market, they will have to find some company that is willing to develop an OS that is not only open, but also easy to program with, easy to function with and easy to set up, as well as also other software developers willing to make the software needed, in the same manner, that is in Windows. The average person does not want to learn all the fandangled specials that may come with Elbrus CPU and its OS. Instead, they want something easy to work with, and easy to obtain software for. Microsoft also has the massive amounts of marketing as well as company support that gets their OS on the market, as well as their piss poor coded software to be used in almost every office (Microsoft Office, especially new ones, are total garbage and poorly coded. But it is used in every major company. Lotus Office and LibreOffice are both great pieces of open source office software that is barely used. They are open source, meaning free as well (not having to pay $100 + for a office software) and other mail based software that acts like Outlook. But in the end, these lack the marketing and many industries have already their mail servers and what not set up on something like MS exchange so changing it is pointless and costly for them.
This is something I do not see happening unless MS bans Windows OS entirely in Russia. Which to that effect would mean that people will just end up downloading it via torrent from other countries anyways. As for obtaining the microprocessors like Intel and AMD, they would just end up purchasing from China through third party like private sales and what not. That is how Iran and North Korea is still able to obtain Intel based processors for their computers/super computers, even though Iran develops their own SPARC processor as well. Windows has just too much functionality (even if poorly designed and coded) and that takes advantage of the Intel and AMD CPU's.